Love: Indirect cause of War?

[Baron Samedi]

D_B_D, I have heard differently. I live in Australia, and I am not saying that I disagree with the war. Personally, I think it was good that it happened, but a shame that Australian troops had to go, but that is besides the point. The point I wanted to make, was that, my Dad is american. When the Soldiers from one of the carriers was in Perth, they met (somehow, I can't remember) The Serviceman said that he, and a lot of his friends on board, disagreed with the war, but as Maladjusted and Heaven's Cloud said, the have no way to openly disagree with the war, without risking their livelihoods. I didn't say it was senseless violence, and I don't believe anybody did. But possibly, just possibly the idea of saving the people was a front for oil. Yes, a popular conspiracy theory. But Yes, plausible. Even so, if it was, it was not sensless violence, just greedy violence, with a purpose, therefore rendering it senseful (that a word... Well, you get my meaning).
And weren't the documents about having Missiles launched in 6 minutes, or whatever it was, rubbish? Seems like someone screwed up. How high in the ranks is your Father? I hope you realise that the [i]Truth[/i] doesnt generally filter all the way down. Of course, it may have been a genuine wish to help the people, and neutralise a threat, but I think North Korea is probably more of a threat. If the U.S would let anybody other than themselves have Nuclear weapons, and people tried to get over disagreements without threats, it might help. Get countries to sign a decree that if one country attacks another, than [i]everyone[/i] on the treaty will either go to the one side, or the other, depending on mitigating circumstances, etc. Than people would be too afraid to start a war, as the world would come down on their doorstep. We would have a truce based on fear, which is better than a truce based on lies.

War should not be about love. Love is something pure, that should not have anything to do with war. I can not think of any circumstances which would make Love cause War. I suppose you could say that people 'love' their religion, but I think that is more zealousness, and fanaticism. If not a religious war, than a righteous war, where people want to go and show someone else how [i]they[/i] think they should be acting. If not a righteous war, than a greed War, wanting resources of other from a country. Those are the basic types of War, and none pertain to a true form of Love.

[Justin]

Eh, to say that war is caused by love, whether directly or indirectly, seems far too romanticized for my definition.

I'd have to say that most wars are caused by some form of greed. And I would put greed under 'lust'...and I see a very distinct difference between lust and love.

And let's do keep this on topic. If something you're about to say 'may be a bit off topic', simply leave it alone.

-Justin

[Gimble]

Little point from a rather new person who know alot about literature. Shakespere actually didn't "write" Romeo and Juliet. He took an old Italian play, (essentialy the tale of 2 star crossed lovers) and revised it with new characters and a slightly more modern plotline (for his time at least) just as the Americans did several years back with Leanardo Dicaprio's version. Though (if i remember correctly) it stayed with the Shaspere version it did modernise the tale a little just as the old beanbag himself did with his revision.*relises that had nothing to do with the topic.*
Oops. Yes well i do belive that love causes war in some form may it be indirectly, over lust, or something else. Hope tha tmakes this post on topic enough cause i can't think of anyhting else..